Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Okay.

Notice of a public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Brownsville. Pursuant to Chapter 551, Title V of the Texas Government Code, the Texas Open Meetings Act, notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Brownsville, Texas has scheduled a regular meeting on Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers on the second floor of the Brownsville City Hall Old Federal Building located at 1001 East Elizabeth Street, Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas, 78520. Pledge of Allegiance.

Do a roll call.

Daniel Elkin, present.

David Betancourt.

Amalia Benson. Eliza Vasquez.

Bob Torres. Approval of the minutes for the regular meeting on July 9th, 2026.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Seconded. We have a first and second motion to approve the minutes of July 9th, 2026. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Updates and comments?

I do have a comment.

Yes. Uh, good evening commissioners. The only comment on behalf of staff and for the public is that item number three from the public hearing section was withdrawn by the applicant. There will be no public hearing for that comment, nor there will be any action.

Okay. Thank you. We do have commissioner Rodriguez. It's missing tonight. And I just, on behalf of the board, we just want to congratulate her because she became a grandmother yesterday. So welcome baby William.

Next will be presentation and update on the historic design standards.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners. I'm Juan Vélez, the Historic Preservation Officer, and I'm here to introduce you the consultants that the City of Brownsville hired for the updated design guidelines. It's Fritz and Nichols, Mr. Christopher Reeves is here, and also Terracon, Mr. Justin Newhart. That is the one that is going to be in charge to introduce the proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey everyone, I'm Justin Newhart. We are working with Friesen Nichols to update the city's historic design guidelines. So just as a brief overview, the city's current historic preservation design guidelines were adopted in 2015, They were created in 2015. They were never actually formally adopted by city council. And so one of the things that this project is seeking to do is update the design guidelines to best preservation practices, but also move them through their legislative process for adoption by city council and making sure that they are dovetailed and work well with the city's unified development code. So we started this project in May. We're a couple months in. This is a map showing the location of the historic or where the historic design guidelines are applicable in Brownsville. One of the things that we're looking at is whether these boundaries should be expanded.

Can you hear me better?

One of the things we're looking at is whether these boundaries should be amended to include or to expand or reduce the size of the historic districts. Our goal is to identify any kind of enforcement conflicts with the guidelines in the Unified Development Code. simplify the certificate of appropriate appropriateness process for applicants and the historic preservation commission commissioners so it's easier for projects to get approved and development to happen in brownsville and also to make the process easier for city staff to administer so it reduces the amount of time they have to spend reviewing development projects in historic districts. One of the key things that we're going to do is define standards and guidelines in the design guidelines. Some early feedback we got from the Historic Preservation Commission is that They want to be able to actually enforce some of the design guidelines in the document, which they aren't really able to do now, while keeping some of the guidelines as recommendations, not requirements. So the way the current design guidelines are written, there's not a clear distinction between what a standard and a guideline is. So we're going to define that better and break those out. And also make sure that the design guidelines are in alignment with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties. As a certified local government, the city of Brownsville has some statutory requirements from the Texas Historical Commission to implement the Secretary of the Interior's standards in historic districts. So we're going through the design guidelines to make sure that the language in your guidelines is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. One of the things we noticed in the current design guidelines is that there is not a lot of guidance for new infill construction, especially in residential districts, and it leaves a very wide open path for the types of designs and new construction you get in your residential neighborhoods. So we're going to provide a lot more visual guidance so that designers and property owners can find it easier to to design compatible new construction within historic districts. Similarly, we're going to look at the design guidelines for new infill construction in the commercial core so you also get more compatible new commercial buildings in and around downtown. We're working with the Historic Preservation Commission to identify what design guidelines they like from other comparable pure cities across the country. These are just some examples from New Orleans, Denver, San Antonio. and Fort Worth of what some visual guidance and design guidelines look like for appropriate windows, appropriate additions, appropriate new construction and historic districts. So you can expect to see your new standards and guidelines have similar visual guidance like these other cities. We held our first workshop with the HPC in June. We're here through Saturday. We're here briefing you all tonight. We're doing some key stakeholder interviews tomorrow morning. We're meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission tomorrow afternoon for another workshop. And then we'll be at the downtown event Friday night and the farmer's market Saturday morning to get community feedback on that. what they like about historic preservation in Brownsville. And the goal is to finalize the document in November and bring it through the legislative process starting in December for formal adoption. So that's the quick highlight of where we're at with the project. I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have about the design guidelines or what we're doing with with you all as the city.

Questions? I guess no questions. Thank you, Justin. Appreciate your time.

Thanks, y'all. Presentation and update on the city's pre-disaster housing recovery plan.

Commissioners, Carlos Guero, city's planning department, senior planner. Yes, I just wanted to give an update on the city's pre-disaster housing recovery plan. This plan was, can't say it was adopted because it was adopted by city council, but it was developed in 2005. was developed with the consultant team, Wellspring Planning, and the community partners include Come Dream, Come Build, Housing Authority of Brownsville, the Red Cross, the city's Grants and Community Development Department, the city's Emergency Management Department, the Good Neighborhood Settlement, Brownsville Public Works and Engineering, the Ozanam Center, and of course the city's Planning Department. So essentially the Pre-Disaster Housing Recovery Plan is a roadmap to help community leaders Organize, coordinate, and direct quick and effective recovery of the affordable housing stock following a weather event, so a major flood, hurricane. It's a plan that's put into place to provide either temporary or permanent housing for our most vulnerable residents. This comes about from the 2019 Texas Legislature. They passed Senate Bill 289, and this bill encourages cities and counties, especially communities with higher proportions of low to moderate income households, to create pre-disaster housing recovery plans. The purpose of this is to reduce the period of time that disaster survivors are out of their houses maximize local control over disaster reconstruction, and reduce the cost of recovery to homeowners and taxpayers. It's important to note that this plan does not guarantee that we would get disaster funding. Rather, it kind of demonstrates that we have the policies in place to accept that funding. So if that funding were to be allocated, there'd be less delays because we have a plan in place to address this. This plan focuses on people, places, policies, and processes. These strategies include establishing an organization and communication framework for disaster recovery and to build capacity for disaster recovery. It identifies existing community facilities that could serve as year-round neighborhood disaster resiliency hubs for education, preparedness, outreach, and intake and housing recovery. So this is essentially a center that people can go to when they're at their most vulnerable, when they're out of a home, when there's been a disaster. The city will use a combination of local policies and targeted programs to help mitigate the impacts of disasters. We'll also complete the damage assessment within three weeks post-disaster to help expedite that housing recovery. And it establishes several processes, you know, mostly eligibility and intake of households and who needs permanent housing. Also establish a process for rapid temporary housing and emergency repairs, as well as a process and recovery for permanent housing. So about a week ago, this plan was submitted to the Texas A&M Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center. The Recovery Center staff is going to review the plan and coordinate with the planning department for any suggested edits or updates. After their initial approval, this plan will go before the Texas General Land Office for their final approval and adoption, and then to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and FEMA for consideration. This was part of that Senate bill, you know, to have the plan reviewed by the A&M Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center and then have them submit that to the Texas General Land Office. It's worth noting that the City of Brownsville will be the first community in Texas to have drafted a pre-disaster housing recovery plan. And we could set the example for the rest of the state and serve as a template. With this adopted plan, you know, this process for recovery is solidified and the city can begin to implement approved strategies through the plan. So If this plan gets approved by the Reduction Recovery Center and ultimately HUD, we will begin the process of implementation of strategies, probably taking items before you all, maybe it's UDC updates or process updates, in order to facilitate that plan, ensure that we can effectively implement it. And like I said, you know, kind of open ourselves up to funding, right? While it doesn't guarantee funding, it does demonstrate that city's taken those initial steps to accept funding in the event of a disaster or a major event. And I'm sorry. And so we're expecting comments back from the Reduction Recovery Center, probably about mid-month. They did say that they would try to get it before classes at A&M start, which is, I think, in the middle of the month. So we're hoping to hear back from them within the next week or so, probably two weeks. So hopefully by our next planning and zoning meeting, we'll have an update and report out for you all.

So who is going to be responsible for this? Is it the planning and zoning redevelopment department? Correct, yeah.

Depending on what their recommendations are, we'll provide any UDC updates or any policy updates so that we can have an ordinance in place and make sure that, like I said, we have those strategies in place in the event that a disaster happens.

And your department would also be the one to file for funds? Yes.

If we're putting that. Not necessarily. I believe that might be the Office of Emergency Management, but we're doing what we can on the planning side through our UDC to make sure that we're implementing this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Items for individual consideration. Consideration in action to grant a subdivision waiver for MP Legacy Subdivision, located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Brownsville, from the municipal planning process and solely proceeding with Cameron County jurisdiction.

Thank you. This request is for a subdivision, a residential type subdivision under the name of MP Legacy Subdivision. It is proposing a total of 44 single-family residential lots. They are proposing this waiver so that they can continue the platting process under Cameron County's jurisdiction. This image here shows the proposal that they're currently working with and wanting to proceed with the county's process on finalizing that plan for those proposed 44 lots. The third for frontage for this project is on Medford Avenue and North Oklahoma Avenue. And we are recommending approval of this waiver.

I can't tell by this, how large are those lots?

These are standard, a little bit above the standard single family lot, which is typically around 5,000. But as per the image, each lot seems to be around 8,500 square feet.

Make a motion to approve.

We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on Ordinance Number 2026-1817 to adopt the Downtown Renaissance Master Plan and discuss related matters. Thank you, Julio.

Good afternoon, Planning and Zoning Commission. Happy to be before you all again today. I'm very excited to say that we are finally towards the finish line at this point in time. SAP is recommending approval of the adoption of the Downtown Renaissance Master Plan. As you heard earlier from our Friesen Nichols consultants, we are moving forward with, you know, adjusting our design guidelines for downtown area. The city is being proactive about what's in the plan already. But we've heard from our community. We are already starting to purchase trash can and benches. So we're actively moving on towards as this plan is getting adopted. We plan to have it before the city commission August 18th. At the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that we had last month, staff presented the plan itself. We talked about how the public draft was available online. And at that point in time, we had it open up until July 23rd. So it was about a month open after we posted it. And during that timeframe, we received feedback from 63 different participants who had Positive things to say about the plan. Of course, we had some comments about the plan itself and maybe others who didn't have support of the plan to be adopted. But overall, the feedback was good about the plan itself. And about 86% of those that responded to the plan itself said that they were in support of the plan for adoption at City Commission. So staff is happy to report that overall comments were positive on the plan itself. The city is moving forward with downtown and revitalization efforts. We are actively already have POs and purchased tractions and benches. So we look to have that done by end of the year. That was one of the actionable items that our community wants to see first thing. So we're actively doing that already. talked about the historic guidelines, and there's other aspects as well that we are actively working on throughout the downtown. So moving forward, I'm happy to say we're in talks with B-Metro as well about that trolley, looking at how we can have that activated in the downtown area as well. So like I said, the city's actively working to make actionable items in our downtown. So very excited. And at this point in time, I can take any questions. If not, the commission can move forward with adoption and recommending approval of adoption to the city commission.

I appreciate all the work, and as you all know, I've been downtown longer than I'd like to say, but anyway. The alley behind my office there, that's Bombay Place. It's actually a street. And Mayor Tony Martinez had buried everything. If you just got, and I know we discussed this one time, just even a golf cart running back and forth from to the market square to the parking garage, I think would be wonderful.

I think that's a great idea, Commissioner Flores, and thank you for mentioning that. We actively are working on activating that alley. I'm happy to report that we actually got a grant to activate that alley. So we already are talking to an architect and their engineers company, I believe it's Gignac, who's been working on that with us to activate that alley. So we're going to have public art, possible seating in the area, lighting. We're looking at having some space to provide shade throughout that alley to get people to move from the parking garage into Market Square and beyond. So we're actively already working on that as well.

I think once they get there, then they can pop to everywhere else. I think it'll be a great thing for absolutely including myself. The other thing is all of these things are wonderful in my mind. But if we don't have the security in place, because there's still a lot of things going on. Of course, I just walked to church the other day and I got stopped two or three times. And so there's a lot of people that just don't want to go. I'm not trying to be negative. I love that. That's why I moved downtown. Because everybody was asking me, why did you move downtown? Because I love it. I grew up downtown. Yes, sir. So I want that to be something that... We definitely are working closely with BPD.

I will say that the parking stations right now do pay for police overtime on the weekends. So we'll look at and revisit that to see if maybe we can work something out a little bit better to get more security downtown.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Is that the only alley that you're working on right now?

Well, we're working on the other side of Market Square as well. It'll still be that same alley, but it will go from 11th onto 9th.

What streets did you say we're going to try to close to 9th?

Okay, so part of that, that what we call Plaza Mayor section is what we want to do is have a pedestrian slash low vehicle traffic street where we had multi-use path from. about 11th Street to International. And that's going to be on Adams. So ideally, and this is not something that we're looking at at any point in time right now, but we're looking at seeing what we could do in the future. This is a project that you probably see in closer to a five to 10 year route. Hopefully, we'll start our pilots here and there. But the idea is to have that as a pedestrian slash slow vehicular traffic so that we can have that as a primary corridor into International as well as GTRGV and TSC.

didn't you say we were going to have a pilot program soon on this?

Yes, we are working on a pilot right now. We are actually actively talking to business owners and property owners along Adams. Uh, we are like, so a pilot to, to the city initially is we'll kind of maybe start looking around on the next couple of months through like first Friday, see how that's will receive or not look at it, possibly closing some areas of the street. I know that typically, um, The closures aren't necessarily welcome, but in other times they are. So depending on what the activation is and what it's for. So that's possibly what we're going to be looking at within the next few months about how we can start doing pilot programs for that street.

I think as long as we get the word out to the public, you'll have a better response.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Anything else? Thank you, Ellen. Appreciate your work.

Thank you so much. Is there a motion to...

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second motion to approve the downtown residence master plan. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-012 to rezone from residential single family R1 to residential transition R3 to allow a townhome development for 3.205 acres out of Share 4, Espirito Santo Grant, Cameron County, Texas, located at Vasquez Ranch Road, Brownsville, Texas, 78520.

Thank you, Julio. As mentioned, this is a proposed or a request for rezoning from the current R1 single-family district. It's requesting an R1 to an R3 for residential transitioning district. The proposal for these 25 lots, this plot is in the preliminary stages and these 25 lots are being proposed for townhome developments that will be fronting Vasquez Ranch Road. We did do our due diligence in notifying to comply with state law to all of the adjacent property owners in the area. We put out a physical sign to comply with the latest state law on this on-site. This 200-foot buffer map shows a total of five mail-outs that were sent to adjacent property owners. We did receive zero written in opposition at our department for this request. As we can see on the zoning map, most of this area is either R1 single-family district or AG for agricultural on the west and north boundaries, and there is a portion in the vicinity that is outside of city limits and inside our extraterritorial jurisdiction. This aerial map shows the adjacent frontage, Voskes Ranch Road, which is a collector at 80 foot right of way. is where these 25 lots would be fronting. We also have military highway, which is considered a primary material at 150 foot of right of way. This is the Pulumi Platte, the civil engineers working with our planning department, depicting or highlighting those 25 lots that are being proposed or requested for a rezone from R1 to R3 residential transition.

And as we can see here, they are fronting that Vasquez Ranch Road.

Excuse me, and just to interject real quick. Yes. For this particular figure, this is the original... depiction or the configuration of the lots that they were proposing. The 25 lots that are being shown along Vasquez Ranch Road are single-family residential lots of standard size, approximately 5,000 square feet. If this gets approved, what they would be doing would be basically doubling the amount of lots fronting uh vasquez ranch road so these would basically be cut in half each of these lots to double them up and create a higher density along this proposed thoroughfare so the lots would be come smaller 2500 square feet each and we'd have 50. to fit more units and this lot is going to have a town yes

When staff reviewed this request, we did find it consistent with our current comprehensive plan and future land use plan. However, we are recommending denial for that original request from R1 to R3 district. As mentioned by Mr. Martin, who is overseeing that plot process, this would create more lots that would have direct access or proposed access to that collector type road. So alternatively, staff is recommending approval instead of from R1 to R2 road. residential suburban. This would allow for the proposed development. However, we are also recommending that that be tied in with a planned development district that would control for that access management requirement that would prohibit too many access ways into the adjacent Vasquez Ranch Road. In that PDD, we would be requiring that they instead propose a shared access easement on the rear side of these lots that would comply with the access management requirements. If you need a little bit more detail, Martin has overseen that requirement. We have been in the talks with the civil engineers, we presented this alternative recommendation to them. However, they did decide to stay with their original request of R1 to R3 district.

They're rejecting the access along the rear.

Yes, so just again to give you a bit more context and if we can go back to the slide, as mentioned earlier, Originally, they were proposing 25 single-family lots of standard size. That means there would be 25 driveways. Similar to a zoning case that we saw a couple of months ago on Robindale Road, where because it was fronting a collector, we couldn't have, or the UDC doesn't accept, due to safety reasons, to have multiple driveways fronting the roadway. In this case, well, originally it was going to be 25 driveways. If we allow the change without opposing conditions, then they would have 50 driveways fronting Vasquez Ranch Road, which is destined to be a collector and therefore creates a much higher concern related to safety because a collector does carry higher speeds and higher traffic. That's why we met in person with the developer and with their engineer, and we provided the option to where they could continue with their development, but instead of having one access for each lot, have an internal road or an internal easement, a private drive, where... It would be starting, let's say, at lot number one, finish at lot number 50. And it would be an internal drive to where people could access without interrupting the traffic on Buskins Ranch Road. However, they declined the suggestion. And as per, we do have it in writing where they said that they wanted to move forward with the request as is. However, even if this is approved by the commission, they still face the obstacle. It doesn't remove the requirement of not having that many driveways fronting Vasquez Ranch Road.

What's the speed limit in front of that road?

Well, right now it's just a dirt road. Whenever it gets fully developed into its entire cross-section, a collector always starts at 45 miles per hour.

But on 281?

Well, on 281, it's 60 miles per hour.

And the school is just north of that.

Correct.

So there is a lot of traffic right there.

Yes. Also, just to add something else before I forget, this road will eventually continue northward or northeast towards Altenglor. So eventually it will be a connection from Highway 281 all the way to Altenglor.

Where is it going to enter at Altenglor?

It's a little bit north of Bay of Easter Park, I think is what the park is called.

um what you're proposing is they run a secondary road through the middle of that property would it be splitting the Or on the backside of the property.

On the backside.

It doesn't necessarily have to be in the back. It could also be on the front, but it would be a shared easement, sort of like an alley running all in parallel to the lots internally to where that blocks traffic can traverse without interrupting the traffic that's going to be happening on Vasquez Ranch Road.

Yeah, because I guess future planning, that's going to be a pretty busy street at a certain point, and then you'll have that problem. Kind of reminds me of like Morrison Road, how they have all those houses.

And that's precisely what we're trying to avoid, and that's why the requirement on the UDC was added, because of the situation that happened on Morrison.

Just a technical clarification for me. They're requesting the R3. Your recommendation to the R2, that's what allows then the PDD?

No. We just requested the R2 because it's a less invasive zoning designation that still allows them to do townhomes. The R3 would allow them to do townhomes, but potentially if someone says, you know what, I want to buy four of those townhome lots or five and I want to merge them together and do an apartment complex, they can do so. So it's just a way to proactively provide protection to future homeowners in the area.

And you mentioned they would still have the challenge later, right? Even if we approve the R3, they would still have the challenge before they could develop dealing with the access issue, right?

Correct.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this item, if they would come forward. Well, we need open public hearings.

I'll make a motion to open public hearing.

Seconded. First, second to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this topic? Is the developer here?

No. I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

First, second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Any other questions before we vote?

Is the choice before us their original request, or is it still an option to go with staff recommendation and go ahead and give the R2?

Their original request is from R1 to R3 district, and we're recommending denial. We did run the alternative recommendation earlier, but they did refuse that alternative. So the request before this board is technically the original one. Yes.

So if this was a motion to deny, then that kills it. Would anyone on the board be able to make the recommendation?

There are different options.

Does that matter?

If I may interject, there are different options here. You could make a motion to follow staff's alternative recommendation, and that could be pushed forward to city council. You could also make a motion to just take the original request as is without considering our alternative recommendation. And that would also be pushed to city council if it is appealed, if I'm not mistaken.

Right. And I just want to point out, if you deny it this evening, we will send a letter of denial tomorrow morning. And they have 10 business days to appeal. If they do appeal, it will move forward to city commission for the item to be heard. Well, if you approve, it's going to automatically... Well, you can approve the staff recommendation and it'll move forward to city commission. And we would notify them that it was approved based on staff's recommendation.

With the conditions.

With the conditions. Correct. However, they may at city commission continue saying, you know what, we're in disagreement with those conditions. Well, that's their prerogative. They want to move forward like that way. But yes, if you approve the PD with the conditions, it'll move forward. Or if you deny it and they appeal, it'll move forward.

I may have missed it. Can we go back to the plan itself? So these are the 25 lots, and they're petitioning to cut them in half?

Correct.

And how exactly? Like right down the middle?

Right down the middle.

Okay, so that's 50 openings. And we talked about that is a lot of traffic going out. So the alternative is, okay, so that's primarily what I wanted to know is how they were going to cut them. They were going to cut them right down the middle. So they couldn't do just one driveway that would go up and then go into each one?

I believe that's the proposal.

That's actually the alternative, yes. To have, let's say, one entrance at the level where Lot 1 is and then in the terminus where Lot 25 is based on this image and have an internal drive that doesn't interrupt the traffic on Vasquez.

And just to further clarify, that is staff's recommendation for them. However, they did refuse that alternative and instead decided to just go with the original request. Yes, sir.

So the staff is recommending denial from the R1 to the R3 because he said they could potentially do apartments. They're recommending R1 to R2 with conditions.

Go ahead. For my education, it says the alternative is the staff recommends the approval to rezone. Did they ask to rezone it to residential signals?

They asked to rezone it from our one district to our three district. That was the original application. And it's still the request as per their refusal of our alternative. At the end of the day, this is a recommendation. So whether, say, for example, we make a motion to recommend a straightforward denial of that R3 district request that they are making, as Mr. Martin mentioned, they could appeal within those 10 days. Then it goes to city council with that original request. A motion could also be made for our alternative recommendation for approval that will go straight to city council to be heard. And we would make the same presentation before them However, it's just a recommendation. Our city council can, in theory, decide to go either way since they have the final word.

Well, during our in-person meeting, they brought an example that they did in McAllen. But in McAllen, it was a local street. All the lots were proposed internally. They weren't fronting to an arterial or a collector. And we pointed out that that was the main difference. We went through the scenarios with them. We provided the alternative. And then they responded to them directly. our concerns perhaps weren't valid because Vasquez Rancho, they didn't foresee it as becoming a future collector in the near future. However, it's based on the thoroughfare plan. It's going to happen perhaps not in 10 years, but we have to be proactive when we adopt the zoning. Yes, yes.

For half, correct?

Right for their half.

Commission.

I move to move forward with the stack recommendation that allows for the increased density, but as the R2 with the PPD.

We have a first and a second. Oh, wait a minute. Do we close public hearing?

Yes, you did.

Okay. Sorry. Oh, we have a first and second motion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2026-017-S has been canceled. This was a request for a specific use permit in a regional center zoning district to allow a data center for lot 1A, block 1, LR Cowan subdivision, replant number 2, and lot 2, block 1, Padre Place subdivision, Cameron County, Texas, located at 7480 Padre Island Highway, Brownsville, Texas, 7521. This was withdrawn by the applicant. So no action will be taken on this one. Next is public hearing and action on Ordinance Number 235-2026-018 to rezone from Agriculture AG to Residential Single Family R1 to allow a single family residential subdivision for all of Summer Lake Subdivision Phase 4, Cameron County, Texas, located at Summer Hill Boulevard, Brownsville, Texas, 78520. All right.

Thank you. Yes, so this request is to rezone from ag to single family residential. It's essentially a continuation of the subdivision that's to the north. This is phase four of the subdivision. Phase three is immediately to the north. So as required by state law, we sent out public notices. We even posted a sign on the property. And then we also sent out 47 mail outs to property owners within a 200 foot radius and we received zero written opposition to the request. Like I mentioned, this is a continuation of the subdivision to the north. It's zoned residential single family to the north and consists of single family homes. To the west is outside the city limits inside the city's ETJ. To the south is zoned agriculture. And then to the west is also zoned residential single family. It's an aerial image. The entrance to the subdivision will come off Summer Hill Boulevard, which is a collector street with an 80-foot right-of-way. And then in the future, it'll expand further south and then connect to New Carmen Avenue. So it'll actually run all the way from Sports Park Boulevard to east-west to New Carmen Avenue. So it's west of the sports park. The proposal is for 117 single-family lots. They're about 6,000 square feet in size. The subject property is located within the Emerging City West District, which is predominantly residential, consisting of single-family homes. Therefore, this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Plan, as well as the development trend directly to the north. Staff is recommending approval of the zoning request from Ag to residential single-family.

Is this Phase 4, you said?

Yes, ma'am, it's Phase 4.

And they've already started work?

They're allowed to start leveling, but they're not allowed. The subdivision is recorded, but they're going for the rezoning to start being able to officially start getting building permits for it.

Make a motion to open public hearing.

We have a first, second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Motion carries. should have any questions. If not, ladies and gentlemen, this is the public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this topic, if you'll come forward.

Make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. We have a first second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

As per staff's recommendation, I move to approve. Second.

We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-903-S to request a specific use permit, SUP, in a commercial corridor CC zoning district to allow a commercial plaza and establish reduced setbacks for lots 16, 17, and 18, Block 1, Naranja Vista Subdivision, Cameron County, Texas, located at 9935 Naranja Road, Brownsville, Texas, 78521.

Thank you. As mentioned, this is a specific use permit request for a proposed development, which would be a commercial plaza. What this SUP is proposing is reduced setbacks along property on Naranjo Road. We did comply with state law in terms of noticing to adjacent property owners about this public hearing. We also placed a physical sign at the property. This is a 200-foot buffer map showing that 13 mail outs were sent to adjacent property owners and we received zero letters written in opposition to this request. We can see on the zoning map there is a mix of different zoning districts here. There is an R3 residential transition district north and south of this vicinity. corridor commercial along the east boundary to this property and we as we can see on the Far East side of the vicinity there is also existing r1 zones and uses is an aerial map showing the existing development trend here as we can see it's a good mix of commercial office uses with some single-family or a single family established subdivision on the east side. There's also undeveloped land on the north. This is a proposed site plan so that we can go a little bit in detail as to why they are requesting an SUP with conditions to reduce setbacks. Anuka Road, otherwise known as Naranjo Road in this area of the city is proposed to expand. Once that expansion is completed, it will be going into the existing property line and will be essentially creating a new property line at this location. When you start measuring the required 25 feet from the new property line, it would significantly reduce how much of that land the developer can use to bring in that proposed building. Since this property is also adjacent to an existing residential use on the West side boundary as per UDC we would also have to require a 15 foot separation on that side so with the combination of those 25 feet and the 15 foot separation on the West boundary it would very much reduce the scope of that project so therefore Staff worked with the developer with this applicant to come up with this special use permit so that we can approve these reduced setbacks. So instead of him complying with a 15 foot setback on the west side due to residential adjacency requirements on our UDC, we are instead proposing that he approve an approval of a 7.5 foot setback on that west boundary. We're also asking that there be a temporary reduction on the front setback requirement since that is the only viable location where they can place two parking spots or two temporary parking spots and the required trash enclosure as per our UDC requirements for commercial development. We did find this request to be consistent with our comprehensive plan and future line use plan since it isn't a request to change the zoning, but to instead approve an SUP to provide flexibility to this commercial development. So staff is recommending approval of this specific use permit to allow commercial plaza with reduced setbacks in the commercial district or corridor commercial district It's currently designated as. This again will allow a reduced front yard setback to allow for two temporary parking spots and the required trash enclosure for the commercial plaza. It would also allow a five-foot setback along the lateral and rear property lines. As we saw on the site plan, instead of the approval of five feet, the developer is instead proposing something greater than the minimum 5 feet and will instead provide 7.5 feet of separation to that boundary adjacent to the single family or the residential property on the west boundary. Also, this will allow two parking spaces, as mentioned, to exit in the front yard until the expansion improvements of Naranjo Road take place. Yes, this one.

So currently there's a 30-foot right-of-way on Naranjo Road?

On Naranjo Road, yes.

And so the 55 shows what it's going to be expanded to.

Yes, to... And the 25 is the setback. Yes, to total what the thoroughfare would require, which is 110 foot for Naranjo.

Go back to the... is the end of the 55 feet. That's what it's going to end up being?

Yes. And from where that new line represented by the dotted line there on the site plan, there's where we would start measuring the 25 feet. It is temporary. Once the expansion is actually conducted, we would have to work with a developer to find a new location for that enclosure. However, in regards to the parking, even after, say, those two parking or temporary parking spots are eliminated by way of that expansion, they would still be complying with our minimum. So they're actually proposing more in surplus than what we would require today.

So you're saying they're going to have sufficient parking?

Even after that expansion. But they want to maintain those additional two for convenience of their customers there.

How many parking spots are they going to end up with? Five or seven? Six. And it's only going to have three units? So each unit is only going to be allowed two spaces in the little plaza? Or is it just

Well, just to point out, the calculation is based on the gross area. There's three suites being proposed, even at the most restrictive parking calculation, which is one per 250 square feet for a restaurant. Even if all three were restaurants based on the square footage, these still comply, even after the removal of the two parking spaces in the front after the expansion occurs.

How big is that plaza going to be again?

What's that?

How many square feet is the plaza going to be?

So it's 20 by 62. 1,736. 1,700? Yes. And what kind of

So are they, is it going to be retail at this point? Do you know?

We don't know.

We don't know the exact proposed uses coming into those three suites. What we do know is that those uses would have to comply with the current designation of court or commercial. So that would allow for retail offices, restaurants, but we don't have a list of proposed uses.

Two spaces.

I'm sorry.

On the plaza section. Is that like two units there?

It would be a total of three.

It's three suites.

Three suites.

Three suites.

I'll make a motion to open public hearing.

We have first and the second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this topic, if you'll come forward. Yes, sir. You'll give us your name and speak into the mic, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Gustavo Maldonado. I'm the applicant for this project that we've been working on since February of this year. Appreciate your time and the opportunity to kind of go over this project. But to answer your question, what the plan on having these three locations is going to be an office, my company's office, and then a barbershop and nail salon. Those are the three offices that we're going to be working on.

Thank you for that info.

Any other questions for Gustavo?

Thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to address this topic?

I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

I'll make a motion to approve for the specific use permit as per the approval or the staff's recommendation. Seconded.

We have a first and a second motion to approve. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for being here.

Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2026-904 to rezone from residential single family R1 to residential suburban R2 to allow an existing duplex subdivision for all of Hidden Meadows subdivision section 2, Cameron County, Texas, located at Hidden Meadows Boulevard, Brownsville, Texas, 7520. Thank you.

Yes, so this request is to rezone from a residential single family to R2 residential suburban R2. to essentially bring the entire subdivision into compliance. Most of the subdivision is being used as a duplex, considered legally non-conforming at this point. This came to us by one applicant who had purchased a vacant lot and wanted to build a duplex on there, only to find out that the property was zoned residential single family and she would have to rezone. In speaking with her, she said, hey, all these properties are also duplexes. And so we did our own analysis and found that it's essentially was incorrectly rezoned to R1 at some point. And so we're trying to fix that. So again, this request is to rezone to R2 to bring the whole subdivision, which is mostly duplex uses into compliance. As required by state law, we posted a physical sign on the property. And we also notified, we sent out 126 mail outs to property owners in a 200 foot radius and we received zero opposition to the request. As I mentioned, what you see that's highlighted in red is existing duplexes. The portion of the subdivision that's to the west of there is single family homes, right? So we're just affecting what's What's duplex uses? The area to the east is zone regional commercial. The areas to the south is residential single family. And then you have a residential estate and an R3 use to the north. This entrance to the subdivision is right there off Alton Glore, which is a primary arterial with 120 foot right of way. And the future land use map designates the areas within the town corridor and sub-regional node. Town corridors are intended to be primarily residential with small clusters of single family. So this request is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and it is consistent with the future land use plan, as well as the development around there. Again, it's to bring the whole subdivision into compliance. So we are recommending approval to rezone from residential single family to residential suburban. Can you take me back to the zoning map on that?

I've got to ask, what happened? And when did it happen?

I'm not entirely sure. This might have been before my time. If Mr. Vega wants to... Sure.

Actually, it was before everyone's time. This subdivision was recorded back in the 90s. Originally, it was the first phase, which is the western portion of the subdivision, was intended for single family. It was done by the... Unknown developer, Mr. Glor, he did the first phase. Again, it was for single family uses. And then when phase two was created and when comparing the plots, you can see that the lots for phase two are a lot larger than the ones for phase one. There's even a node where it says that it was intended to be duplex lots. For whatever reason, under previous administrations, there was the zoning was established or it was actually never changed. What we assume happened is that because subdivision has a note that it was intended for duplex use, that's how they move forward with permitting the use. However, that's not the correct methodology of allowing a particular use actually through the zoning designation. So it has been like this for quite some time. And when, again, like Mr. Guerra said, when we received the permit request to build a duplex on one of the vacant lots, we just decided to do a city-initiated case as a cleanup to the map to make sure that it's consistent with what exists about 90% of the lots that have a structure currently are duplexes, and there's still a few that are vacant.

And that was going to be my next question. So 90% you say are duplexes, are the rest single family? Yes.

And they're one-story duplexes.

I'll make a motion open to public hearing. I'll make a motion.

Good afternoon. My name is Jose Castilleja. I'm president of the Flor del Valle. And we've been living there for 30 years, 33 years, since the community based on there. And we started with a single-family home. And now I see this request, and I'm totally opposed to this request because it will increase our taxes. The buildings, there's no constructions of... Those big units, obviously the value of the unit is going to be bigger than our little houses. It used to be in the 90s. All those homes are little. And we are on the age that it's hard for us to pay the taxes. If there's an increase in taxes, that's why I'm not agreeing on that. Yes, I have some neighbors. We are in the same situation. We are on the... I'm 72, and it's hard for me to pay the 3,000 taxes yearly. And that's why I'm a positive to this request. Certainly understand your position.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it.

Fortunately, we don't have any control over Cameron County Appraisal District, and we're all in the same boat that they've raised taxes on all of us. But that development, that subdivision is already duplexes. How many vacant lots are they left?

There's about four.

I'm sorry?

There's about four lots left.

Four lots that are left for duplex. And as Martin said, when the original subdivision plat was recorded, it was recorded for duplexes. Go ahead.

Well, the subdivision was done on the 90s, like you said, and there was no access to the back. It was only the neighborhood. It was a very close neighborhood. There was only two or three blocks, and that was it. Those increases started on the maybe late 2000s. And that's what we, we don't have option to move from there. So that was the, it cut it in the middle. That's, there's a new building. So those duplexes are barely new besides the 30 years houses that we have. Small houses. It's not something that it was constructed by the time when we go there. It was a small, very small community there.

Thank you. Just to clarify, this is a city-initiated rezoning. So what we're trying to do is to legalize the situation. So, Martin, could you explain what the code enforcement process would be if we don't rezone to R2, to the existing single-family houses?

Well, if the property wasn't rezoned, potentially, well, the way that our code enforcement works is reactive. If someone who already has a duplex in the subdivision, if we were to receive a complaint about a neighbor who has, let's say, a single family home, and they're complaining about a neighbor who has a duplex, since it's technically legal, an R1 zoning designation, then we would have to cite them and we would have to first obviously educate them and tell them why, but then they would have to initiate this very process individually. So we would put a burden on every single property owner that has a duplex to individually come before you to legalize the property. So again, it's just a housekeeping item that, well, for many years was overlooked and we're just trying to clean that up.

Was there anybody else in the audience that wanted to address the board?

I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

So as far as I'm not here to speak on how taxes are implemented, but I mean, any new house that goes in there, even if it was a single residence or duplex, I mean, I don't, I think that if there was a tax raise, it would be no different if it was a single family home or a duplex. So just to kind of speak on that.

Any other questions, comments?

I'll make a motion to approve based on staff recommendation.

We have a first, second motion to approve. All those in favor? Aye. All those against? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-905 to rezone from commercial corridor CC to residential R3 to allow an existing single family development for an approximate 2.09 acres out of lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, block 40 out of share 28 of the Brown L track coming from a portion of Ed Harding subdivision located at Lester Drive, Brownsville, Texas, 78521.

Thank you. Should be noted that this is also a city initiated request to rezone this property from the existing CC district into a residential transition district for existing single family development or uses in that vicinity fronting Lester Drive. We did comply with state requirements for noticing. We sent these to adjacent property owners, notifying them of this meeting. We also sent a physical sign at the property for the current owners there. This 200-foot buffer map shows a total of 23 mail-outs were sent to adjacent property owners within that 200-foot buffer area. and 0 were written or returned in opposition to staff. This is a zoning map showing the existing zonings in this area. There is a mix of LI or light industrial districts on the north and east and south of this property's boundary. There's also R3 for residential transition and the rest of the zoning districts that are adjacent to this development are corridor commercial. This is an aerial map showing the existing development trend, the boundary of where we're proposing to rezone from corridor commercial to R3 residential transition area. This property or this subdivision here mostly fronts Padre Allen Highway, which is a primary arterial at 120 foot of right-of-way. Just to clarify, the uses that are located here are all single-family residential. The reason why we're going with an R3 district designation and not an R1 is to stay consistent with what exists in the south or southwest boundary on the R3 district. R3 district would allow single family uses and accessory buildings to single family uses by right. So we decided to go with an R3 district instead of creating a spot zone with an R1 district. We found this to be consistent with a comprehensive plan and a future land use plan and with existing development in the area. So we are recommending approval to rezone from corridor commercial to residential transition to bring this, the existing development into compliance.

So under R3, they could construct apartments?

Yes, and single family residential.

Make a motion open to public hearing.

Seconded. We have a first and a second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this topic? Yes, sir. If you'll come up and give us your name.

Novi Garcia. Mr. Garcia. I just have a quick question. My question is, based on this rezoning, is there going to be any type of traffic improvement? I know this is not the correct place for this, but there's a big concern there because it's really hard to get in and it's really extremely hard to get out. It's kind of dangerous most of the time. So, you know, it's just food for thought, maybe.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. We appreciate your comments.

We can answer with Martin's comments, but basically this isn't only a rezone change. We are not proposing any city initiated improvements. This is simply to bring the existing into compliance with an appropriate zoning district. Of course, that is a conversation we're willing to entertain how the city can look into any necessary improvements there. But this item is specifically focusing on just a rezone case.

Mr. Garcia, I would suggest that you reach out to your commissioner for your district and petition them. They're there to represent you.

Yes, just to add to Mr. Nunez's comments, what he mentions is correct. This is simply to rezone. It's not intended to approve any improvements to the area. And just to provide a little bit of context, the reason why there's no true improvement to the extent of being a local street is because this entire parcel or this two-point nine, I think, acre tract, is it was partitioned. It's not a legal subdivision. So it was partitioned throughout time, and people started building their houses. So because it was never properly plotted, there wasn't proper right-of-way dedicated, and therefore a local street wasn't built. Now, because houses were... or the construction of houses was initiated in that two-acre parcel, the city granted the easement of what's known today as Lester Drive. But again, it's just an easement for access.

It's not city street.

Well, it's, let's say, overlooked by the city or, again, granted through Eastman, but it's not considered a street by definition or a local street. Therefore...

The city's not maintaining it.

The city's not maintaining it. We could potentially put them in contact with our city engineering department so that our right-of-way agent, Mr. Eddie Santillan, can provide more information as to how the easement came about and if there's any possibility where there could be additional improvements. One other suggestion is if... since you haven't taken action yet if this item is approved they could attend the city commission meeting and express or the same concern that they have expressed here that way their commissioner can hear them out and also because city engineering is also present at the city commission meeting and there we can uh a system with initiating a conversation. However, from experience, I'm almost certain that to be able to do a bigger improvement, there would have to be right-of-way dedication. Therefore, some of the frontage of each person's lot would be lost. And it will also depend on where the structures are located in reference to the property lines. If the structures are too close to the front property line, then that also creates conflict with how much land they would be able to dedicate to make that improvement.

So none of these houses in this subdivision are lot and blocks?

No.

Well, if someone will get with Mr. Garcia afterwards to explain that and let him know when the next city commission meeting is so he can attend.

Yes, and I guess just to put on the record, the next city commission meeting is on August 18th.

August 18th, Mr. Garcia.

At 5 p.m. Make a motion to close public hearing.

Seconded. We have a first second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

I'm making a motion to approve as per staff's recommendation.

Seconded.

We have a first second motion to approve. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

I'll make a motion to close the meeting, to adjourn the meeting.

We have a first and a second motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. It's 6.47 p.m., ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much for attending.

so